Capturing the value of LNG

Authors: Jorge Arizmendi-Sanchez, Ben Eastwood, Costain,

along with Jasmin Kemper, IEA-GHG
First published: Hydrocarbon Engineering, reprinted from June 2018

costain.com
LNG plants may provide potential for decarbonisation
via carbon capture and storage implementation.
Jorge Arizmendi-Sanchez, Ben Eastwood, Costain,
along with Jasmin Kemper, IEA-GHG, explain.

A
s a key contributor to global energy supply, the LNG supply chain is
expected to be subject to global environmental requirements for the
reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. LNG liquefaction plants
produce a significant proportion of the total CO2 emissions of the
LNG supply chain.
Representative power requirements of a typical baseload liquefaction
plant, with a nominal capacity of 5 million tpy of LNG, are of the order of
230 MW (~185 MW for mechanical drive, ~45 MW for power generation). The
required capacity of the CO2 capture plant would be of the order of 3000 tpd
of CO2, equivalent to approximately 1 million tpy of CO2. This is comparable
to existing full-scale capture plants where post-combustion carbon capture
and storage (CCS) projects have been implemented, so a similar plant size and
associated investment could be anticipated. This shows that LNG plants may
provide an opportunity for potential decarbonisation via CCS
implementation.
 CO2 sources and emissions CO2 is potentially limited to compression and
The gas turbines driving the refrigerant cycle purification (mainly dehydration) of the low-pressure
compressors and in power generation service are CO2 that is otherwise vented. This assumes a low
typically the major emmiters of CO2. Based on the proportion of H2S and sulfur compounds. Otherwise,
typical range of baseload liquefaction specific power of the acid gas stream from the AGRU may need to
0.3 – 0.4 kWh/kg and the performance of gas turbine undergo incineration, resulting in high levels of oxygen
drives, CO2 emissions for LNG plants are typically and SO2 and requiring additional processing to purify
0.2 – 0.28 t of CO2/t of LNG for industrial heavy-duty the residual CO2 stream.
gas turbines. The emissions can be reduced by Reservoir gas fed to liquefaction terminals typically
approximately 25% if aeroderivative gas turbines are contains around 2 mol% of CO2. Higher CO2 content in
used. feed gas will result in substantially larger volumes of
CO2 is separated from the feed gas in an acid gas CO2 being vented, providing a good basis upon which a
removal unit (AGRU) to avoid solidification in the case for CCS implementation can be built.
liquefaction process. Infrastructure for sequestration of Combined emissions are in the approximate range of
0.3 – 0.4 t of CO2/t of LNG for typical
Table 1. Economic evaluation summary plants with relatively low CO2 content in
feed gas (<2 mol%) and up to approximately
2 mol% CO2 in 14 mol% CO2
feed gas in feed gas 0.7 t of CO2/t of LNG for plants with a
high CO2 content (14 mol%, representative)
From AGRU 0.27 1.86
in feed gas (Figure 1).
From fuel gas combustion 1.09 1.09
Total LNG plant 1.35 2.95 CO2 capture routes and
CO2 emissions Associated to capture 0.18 0.18 technology
(million tpy) plant Based on the nature of the LNG industry,
Captured and stored 1.24 2.84 only well-proven technologies are
expected to be considered for CO2 capture
Emitted1 0.29 0.29
in LNG plants, with schemes that minimise
Avoided 1.06 2.66
risk of disruption to LNG production.
Capital cost2 €755 million €872 million Post-combustion capture is considered
CO2 capture
from AGRU and Operating cost3, 4 €567 million €783 million
to provide comparable performance to
post‑combustion other routes (i.e. oxyfuel and
Specific capture cost €42.5/t of CO2 €23.3/t of CO2 pre-combustion), with reduced technical
Capital cost2 €30 million €144 million risk and process complexity.
CO2 capture Operating cost3, 4 Post-combustion capture can be installed
from AGRU only €68 million €384 million
without affecting the availability of the
Specific capture cost €14.7/t of CO2 €11.3/t of CO2 liquefaction process. This route requires a
Notes: minimum number of modifications to the
1 CO emission costs excluded in this estimate.
2 liquefaction plant – mainly consisting of
2 Engineering, equipment, bulk materials, construction, contingency, fees, interest,
the installation of tie-ins, and potentially
capital spares, chemicals, start-up costs, owner’s costs.
3 Lifetime costs (25 years) including insurance, taxes and fees, operation and the installation of additional waste heat
maintenance, power, steam, chemicals, waste disposal, CO2 transport and storage. recovery (WHR) on gas turbine exhausts
4 Assumed gas price is €6/GJ and discount rate of 8%. For other assumptions, refer – hence reducing risk. This makes
to IEA-GHG study reference IEA/CON/16/235. post‑combustion capture appropriate for
new LNG plants or as a retrofit to existing
plants.
The technologies with the highest
potential for immediate implementation
are chemical absorption processes. These
are proven technologies, with the main
disadvantage being the energy
requirements to regenerate the solvent.
However, the heating duty could be
provided by WHR, which should be
available in excess in an LNG plant.
Perceived operational challenges, such as
solvent degradation, solvent volatility and
losses, corrosion, etc., can be managed
within acceptable limits using solvent
Figure 1. Representative CO2 emissions from an LNG liquefaction plant. formulations that are commercially
available.

Reprinted from June 2018 HYDROCARBON

ENGINEERING
CO2 capture plant integration
In a post-combustion capture scheme, an interface
between the gas turbines’ flue gas exhaust ductwork and
the inlet to the CO2 capture plant is required.
Considerations include the installation of tie-ins and
large interconnecting flue gas ductwork, which may
require substantial modifications to pipework and
structures on existing plants or considerable space
allowance for new build ‘capture‑ready’ plants.
Experience with full scale post-combustion capture
plants shows that the footprint required by the capture
plant and associated systems (e.g. cooling, power
generation or ducts) is significant and comparable to the
core processes. For new build applications, issues
associated with the layout and configuration of the
plant can be tackled by considering the location of
emission sources relative to the capture plant, the
selection of gas turbine type, etc. Nevertheless, these
factors will add complexity and costs to the LNG plant
design when compared to the design of a conventional
LNG plant.
If additional WHR units need to be installed, the
plant design must consider the increased backpressure in
the gas turbine outlet, which will impact the
performance and efficiency of the liquefaction process
and reduce plant capacity.
The design (machinery selection) and operation of
shared power generation facilities at part load, during
periods when the capture plant is not operated, needs
to be considered.
The expected size of the CO2 capture plant for a
typical baseload liquefaction train is comparable to the
largest CO2 capture plants currently operating, with
equipment near physical construction limits (particularly
the cross-sectional area of columns). Therefore, a
scheme in which a single CO2 capture plant processes
the full volume of flue gas from multiple LNG trains is
not anticipated.
Economic evaluation
Figure 2. LNG production cost based on representative CAPEX of US$1200/tpy of
installed LNG capacity, annual OPEX equal to 3% of CAPEX, and a nominal cost of
US$6/million Btu (€4.8/million Btu) to cover transportation, regasification and profit.
The dotted lines show the benefit of a tax credit of US$50/t of CO2 (€40/t of CO2)
for 12 years.
Cost estimates have been developed for capture and
compression of the CO2 separated from feed gas (by
AGRU) and flue gases (post-combustion capture) for a
4.6 million tpy LNG plant based on a C3MR process using
two Frame 7 gas turbines as refrigerant compressor
drives, (as being representative of baseload LNG train
designs). Power generation is assumed to be 25% of the
cycle power. All process heating is supplied by WHR
from gas turbines.
Cost estimates do not include the capital cost
associated with the transport and storage infrastructure
(assumed existing), but a specific operating cost of €10/t
of CO2 is included. This cost can differ substantially as
transport and storage schemes vary depending on
factors such as the proximity and nature of storage sites,
opportunity for enhanced oil recovery, etc.
Estimated emissions and costs are summarised in
Table 1. A reduction in specific capture costs for
increased CO2 in feed gas is due to the contribution of
significant volumes of CO2 from the AGRU (Figure 1) with
lower specific costs associated to compression and
purification. The specific capture cost can be
significantly reduced if the scheme only considers
compression and purification of CO2 from the AGRU.
LNG costs for a range of CO2 emission costs (i.e. CO2
tax) are shown in Figure 2. On the basis of emission
costs, implementation of CCS would only be financially
attractive for minimum CO2 emission costs of the order
of €120/t of CO2 for a representative LNG plant with
2 mol% CO2 in the feed gas. Considering feed gas with
14 mol% CO2 shows increased potential, as the minimum
CO2 emission cost that justifies capture is of the order
of €60/t of CO2 due to the emission cost savings
associated with the significant volumes of CO2 vented
from the AGRU.
Current world emission policies set CO2 tax at a
relatively low value (if any), with most emissions
currently priced at less than approximately €10/t of CO2.
Implementation of post-combustion CCS would only
occur for either significant CO2 tax increases or by
drivers other than plant economics, such as
environmental regulations
dictating the requirement
for CO2 capture.
When the CCS scheme
only considers sequestration
of the CO2 from the AGRU,
the minimum emission cost
required to justify the
scheme is of the order of
€30/t of CO2. This level of
CO2 tax is within current
environmental policies in
some regions (such as
Norway and Finland), which
shows the potential of this
route for the
implementation of CCS.
HYDROCARBON Reprinted from June 2018
ENGINEERING
 The prospects of CCS could also be benefited by
CO2 tax credits, such as the US 45Q tax incentive
offering US$50/t (€40/t) of CO2 captured in
underground storage. This would potentially make the
economics of CCS of CO2 from the AGRU feasible,
regardless of emission cost (Table 1).
Potential for CO2 capture
Despite incremental performance improvements being
delivered by capture technologies, CO2 capture remains an
energy-intensive process. LNG plants have significant
potential in this regard as there is usually scope for
additional WHR at the exhaust of gas turbines in
mechanical drive or power generation service that would
provide the required process heating at minimal cost
(assuming WHR is installed).
Sequestration of CO2 vented in the AGRU will play a
major role in the implementation of CCS in LNG plants
having potential in terms of technical feasibility, footprint,
cost and impact on overall project feasibility, particularly
on financing, compared to post‑combustion capture.
Project costs (excluding transport and storage
infrastructure) are one order of magnitude lower than the
full scale post-combustion capture costs.
New build plants are expected to have greater potential
for CCS due to the ability to optimise the plant design to
facilitate the incorporation of the CCS scheme. While
permitting reduction in costs, capture-ready plants will
also encourage implementation of CCS by providing design
Reprinted from June 2018 HYDROCARBON
ENGINEERING
allowances (such as tie-ins, allocated plot space and spare
power generation capacity) to facilitate installation of
future CO2 capture plants. Implementation of CCS schemes
as retrofits on existing (non-capture ready) plants appears
to be difficult due to technical challenges and the impact
on the LNG production economics.
In addition to the demonstration of technical feasibility,
a number of drivers would need to be present for a CCS
scheme to be realised, including the need to comply with
environmental regulations, penalties on emissions (i.e. CO2
tax), the availability of local storage, availability of funding
and financial incentives, and other conditions contributing
to the commercial feasibility of the overall scheme.
The technical and commercial feasibility, leading to
successful implementation of a CCS scheme, should be
considered early, when the economics of the LNG
production scheme are developed. The potential
implementation of CCS in LNG plants could be realised by
a phased development, with sequestration of CO2 vented
from the AGRU being a precursor to full scale CCS, to make
financing feasible and to manage technical and commercial
risks. Post-combustion CCS would then be implemented via
capture-ready plant designs.
Acknowledgements
This paper has been produced as part of the study
‘Techno-economic Evaluation of CO2 Capture in LNG Plants’,
commissioned by IEA-GHG (Reference IEA/CON/16/235). The
authors would like to thank the contribution of Terry Tomlinson
and Adrian Finn to the technical review of the study and this paper.